UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RYAN COX, individually and on No. 23-15363 behalf of all other similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:21-cv-08197- SMB v. COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC; OPINION BINANCE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LTD., DBA Binance, DBA Binance.com; BAM TRADING SERVICES, INC., DBA Binance.US; CHANGPENG ZHAO; CATHERINE COLEY; YI HE; TED LIN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 9, 2024 Phoenix, Arizona

Filed August 12, 2024 2 COX V. COINM ARKET CAP OPCO, LLC

Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Andrew D. Hurwitz, and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Berzon

SUMMARY*

Commodity Exchange Act / Personal Jurisdiction

The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of Ryan Cox’s action under the Commodity Exchange Act, alleging that defendants unlawfully manipulated the price of a cryptocurrency called “HEX.” Although the Act authorizes nationwide service of process, the district court concluded that its venue provision must be satisfied before the nationwide service provision applies. As a result, the district court reasoned, Cox first had to show that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, Arizona. The defendants were two domestic companies headquartered in states other than Arizona, a foreign company, and three individual officers of the foreign company. The district court concluded that each defendant lacked sufficient contacts with Arizona and dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Guided by case law interpreting similar provisions in other statutes and settled principles of statutory construction,

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. COX V. COINM ARKETCAP OPCO, LLC 3

the panel held that the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes nationwide service of process independent of its venue requirement. Thus, to establish personal jurisdiction in Arizona under the Act, Cox did not have to show first that the venue requirement was satisfied. The panel concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the U.S. defendants under the Act because they had sufficient contacts with the United States to satisfy due process. The panel also concluded that the complaint alleged colorable price manipulation claims against the U.S. defendants. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims under the Act against those defendants and remanded for further proceedings. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Cox’s claims under the Act as to the foreign corporate and individual defendants but vacated the dismissal against them “with prejudice” and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint against the foreign defendants without prejudice. The panel concluded that the foreign defendants lacked sufficient contacts with the United States for purposes of personal jurisdiction.

COUNSEL Matthew W. Schmidt (argued), Schmidt Law Corporation, Tiburon, California; Alexander Kolodin, James C. Sabalos, and Veronica Lucero, Davillier Law Group LLC, Phoenix, Arizona; George R. Wentz, Jr., Davillier Law Group LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Karen R. King (argued), Mary G. Vitale, and Raymond D. Moss, Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C., New York, New York;